Should I buy DVD's that are viewed widescreen or fullscreen?

[Chaplin]

Read the rest of the thread, man. I UNDERSTAND the facts. I PREFER widescreen. I have a nice big screen, widescreen TV, and I prefer watching that nice widescreen format. Stop trying to talk down or make it seem like I'm being overly obstinate. And stop trying to make it sound like you're right and anyone that doesn't agree with you must be stupid and wrong.

So, you don't understand that some people would rather lose the sides of the picture and actually be able to follow the movie and *gasp* see the picture on their small TV (I'm in college-I know lots of people with small TVs in their living rooms), rather than have inches of dead space in the picture, and either not be able to watch something or have to hunch within a few feet of the TV? If you cannot understand that, then I feel very sorry for your mental capacity, buddy.

Some people (not myself) can't have a nice TV that widescreen works well with. Just because YOU can't understand that, doesn't mean they're wrong.

I hope that isn't also directed towards me as well, Stout. I'll always be against watching anything full screen that isn't intended to be, but I understand what you're talking about. I just wouldn't advocate it. I also figure it to be wasting money, because what happens when you upgrade your television? Especially if your upgrade is a widescreen television, your full screen dvds become worthless.

Admittedly, I have a few full screen dvds, but I rarely watch them. I also have a lot of television on DVD, and I either watch them on my 30" in my bedroom or just deal with the stretch on my big screen.

 

[Chaz]

Read the rest of the thread, man. I UNDERSTAND the facts. I PREFER widescreen. I have a nice big screen, widescreen TV, and I prefer watching that nice widescreen format. Stop trying to talk down or make it seem like I'm being overly obstinate. And stop trying to make it sound like you're right and anyone that doesn't agree with you must be stupid and wrong.

So, you don't understand that some people would rather lose the sides of the picture and actually be able to follow the movie and *gasp* see the picture on their small TV (I'm in college-I know lots of people with small TVs in their living rooms), rather than have inches of dead space in the picture, and either not be able to watch something or have to hunch within a few feet of the TV? If you cannot understand that, then I feel very sorry for your mental capacity, buddy.

Some people (not myself) can't have a nice TV that widescreen works well with. Just because YOU can't understand that, doesn't mean they're wrong.

Please explain to me where I generated this response?
"Stop trying to talk down or make it seem like I'm being overly obstinate. And stop trying to make it sound like you're right and anyone that doesn't agree with you must be stupid and wrong."


LIKE I SAID if people enjoy the fullscreen that is fine for them. But I don't understand why people would want the side of the movie cut off so it fits in a 4x3 box. And yes I think I am right, what is wrong with that? Do you have some problem with people believing in their own point of view? I didn't call anyone stupid and it was not my intention to make it sound that way. Nice of you to question my mental capacity however.


Sorry I didn't catch on to your understanding after this earlier comment.
"If I had a 27 inch, or a 19 inch, TV, and it wasn't widescreen, it would basically be a waste of time to buy widescreen movies. Unless I wanted to sit within 3 feet of the TV. Why? You know as well as I do why...because you lose almost half the damn picture."
You actually gain picture, but part of the screen does not have picture on it. Prior to anamorphic widscreen you would lose resolution but that would not really be a concern anymore with never DVDs.

For the viewing distance I believe the "rule of thumb" is 2.5X the width of the TV. So a 12' distance for a standard TV seems a little far to me. I sit about 8' from my 47" TV and it seems about right.

I apologize if my question to start my post came across as condecending, It was meant in a very straight forward and honest manner. I know some people that won't watch widescreen because they don't want the black bars and I have other friends that don't pay attention or care about the difference. I have watched many movies on smaller 4x3 TVs and I still would choose widescreen. I would rather move a little closer and view the movie in OAR than submit to pan and scan.

 

[Chaplin]

Just to clarify, you never lose picture when viewing wide screen. You may "lose" screen space, but that's it. When you see the film full screen, you don't lose screen space, but you definitely lose a third of the picture.

So which is better? To me, that's a no-brainer, I never want to lose any of the picture. Ever.

 

[Chaz]

Just to clarify, you never lose picture when viewing wide screen. You may "lose" screen space, but that's it. When you see the film full screen, you don't lose screen space, but you definitely lose a third of the picture.

So which is better? To me, that's a no-brainer, I never want to lose any of the picture. Ever.

 

[Stout]

Yes, SirChaz, you did come off quite condescending, IMO, with your initial response. Sounded like you were saying you knew best and just couldn't understand why others didn't believe like you do. There are always two sides to an issue.

You clarified your stance quite well, though, so it's cool. I should have been more clear in parts as well, especially as regards 'screen space' and not 'losing picture', etc. Ah, well.

Like I said, I have a nice, big screen, widescreen TV, so it's all moot for me anyway. I just think a blanket statement that widescreen is better period for everyone in the world goes above and beyond silly. Obviously, it is not better for everybody...though it is probably better for 90 percent, or perhaps more, of the relevant populace.

 

[Stout]

Just to clarify, you never lose picture when viewing wide screen. You may "lose" screen space, but that's it. When you see the film full screen, you don't lose screen space, but you definitely lose a third of the picture.

So which is better? To me, that's a no-brainer, I never want to lose any of the picture. Ever.

I have my, what is it, 16:9? I have my 16:9, 51 inch TV, so I'm down with the widescreen.

 

[Chaz]

Yes, SirChaz, you did come off quite condescending, IMO, with your initial response.

Please accept my apology then.

Sounded like you were saying you knew best and just couldn't understand why others didn't believe like you do. There are always two sides to an issue.

Well, I do but that is another subject. j/k

Yes there are two sides. I have found most people are simply not informed and I have run into people that think widescreen shows less of the movie because of the black bars. The picture is smaller on a standard screen but there is actually more content to the picture. I'm sure that people that understand the difference will still prefer fullscreen but I don't agree with those people. In general there is a lot of confusion about widescreen, anamorphic, 16x9, 4x3, 2.35:1, fullscreen, and black bars.

Would you really watch LOTR in anything but widescreen? I couldn't stand it knowing that there was background, characters, and scenery in the movie that were cut out. I would rather sit on the floor with some pillows if the widescreen was difficult to see than watch 2/3 of a movie.

 

[Chaplin]

Yes, SirChaz, you did come off quite condescending, IMO, with your initial response. Sounded like you were saying you knew best and just couldn't understand why others didn't believe like you do. There are always two sides to an issue.

Glad to see I'm not the main beneficiary of that, for once!

 

[Stout]

Please accept my apology then.



Well, I do but that is another subject. j/k

Yes there are two sides. I have found most people are simply not informed and I have run into people that think widescreen shows less of the movie because of the black bars. The picture is smaller on a standard screen but there is actually more content to the picture. I'm sure that people that understand the difference will still prefer fullscreen but I don't agree with those people. In general there is a lot of confusion about widescreen, anamorphic, 16x9, 4x3, 2.35:1, fullscreen, and black bars.

Would you really watch LOTR in anything but widescreen? I couldn't stand it knowing that there was background, characters, and scenery in the movie that were cut out. I would rather sit on the floor with some pillows if the widescreen was difficult to see than watch 2/3 of a movie.

Believe me, I know some folks just don't get it. My father has one of the REALLY old big screen TVs, and a small living room, but he whines like a little girl on the lost space. I try to explain to him the difference, but he doesn't care. Ah, well.

 

[Chaplin]

Believe me, I know some folks just don't get it. My father has one of the REALLY old big screen TVs, and a small living room, but he whines like a little girl on the lost space. I try to explain to him the difference, but he doesn't care. Ah, well.

What's funny is that now everything, even television, will be in widescreen when the switch to HD is made, so those older televisions will be obsolete not only because they're analog, but also because they're 4:3.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

I find it ironic that I have a 16:9 HDTV, but widescreen movies (either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1) still have letterboxing on them.

I've always advocated widescreen format, especially with older movies. But it seems that now-a-days filmmakers account for the cropping to a 4:3 format during filming and hardly (if ever!) use the outer edges for much, if anything.

 

[Chaplin]

I find it ironic that I have a 16:9 HDTV, but widescreen movies (either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1) still have letterboxing on them.

I've always advocated widescreen format, especially with older movies. But it seems that now-a-days filmmakers account for the cropping to a 4:3 format during filming and hardly (if ever!) use the outer edges for much, if anything.

Your television isn't set up right. 1.85:1 is 16:9 ratio, there should be no black bars on movies that are ANAMORPHIC and 1.85:1. If your DVD is 1.85 and NOT anamorphic, then you will need to make your television broadcast them as 4:3 (Effectively "cutting" off the sides). But if you are running a Progressive DVD player, and on the digital inputs of your television, then your input on the TV will always be 16:9--and if something isn't anamorphic, it'll be stretched. 2.35:1 will continue to have black bars.

 

[Stout]

What's funny is that now everything, even television, will be in widescreen when the switch to HD is made, so those older televisions will be obsolete not only because they're analog, but also because they're 4:3.

Which is why I'm glad I have an HDTV television

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Your television isn't set up right.

Uh, yes it is.

I just recently purchased a progressive scan DVD player, and connected it with the RGB cords. So I guess you're right about the flat films now taking up the entire screen. I just hadn't thought about it.

I'll have to live with the letterboxing on cinemascope.

 

[Chaplin]

Uh, yes it is.

I just recently purchased a progressive scan DVD player, and connected it with the RGB cords. So I guess you're right about the flat films now taking up the entire screen. I just hadn't thought about it.

I'll have to live with the letterboxing on cinemascope.

You could always do what I do--I have a second, older DVD player (but still good) hooked to one of my other inputs where the television can actually switch between viewing modes, so when I'm watching a movie that is full screen (mostly older movies), I can pop it in there and watch it fine. You do, however, sacrifice picture quality, but if it's full screen, the picture quality on the screen won't be as perfect as one of the Star Wars movies, anyway.

 

[Pariah]

Here's what I think is a semi-related question: In some movies (at the theater, too) it seems like they've employed a sort of "pan and scan" technology from the get-go. The most obvious example I can think of is in the flick "Multiplicity." There are some wierd camera movements that seem really "false."

I'm not sure how else to describe it. Does anyone know what I'm talking about and what it is and why they do it?

 

[Chaplin]

Here's what I think is a semi-related question: In some movies (at the theater, too) it seems like they've employed a sort of "pan and scan" technology from the get-go. The most obvious example I can think of is in the flick "Multiplicity." There are some wierd camera movements that seem really "false."

I'm not sure how else to describe it. Does anyone know what I'm talking about and what it is and why they do it?

I'm not sure I understand. (I never saw Multiplicity)

 

[Pariah]

I'm not sure I understand. (I never saw Multiplicity)

It feels like they might be digitally moving the frame instead of a natural cameral pan. It's almost disorienting. I'm sorry, but I really don't know how else to describe it--I know I'm not being very clear.

You might check out Multiplicity. It's not a great movie, but it's the film that this "effect" stands out to me the most in (I've seen it in others, just not with the frequency that I did with Multiplicity).

 

[Chaplin]

It feels like they might be digitally moving the frame instead of a natural cameral pan. It's almost disorienting. I'm sorry, but I really don't know how else to describe it--I know I'm not being very clear.

You might check out Multiplicity. It's not a great movie, but it's the film that this "effect" stands out to me the most in (I've seen it in others, just not with the frequency that I did with Multiplicity).

I've noticed something similar to what you're describing in television shows, specifically The X-Files, but I think the reason for it is that they mixed formats, i.e. the show was mostly film, but in some instances they used video, especially for 2nd unit stuff like exteriors and shots of cars driving.

In your example, it sounds to me that it probably is a side effect of the special effects, which used to be consistently done in video and then telecined back to film. Because video has a much lower resolution, that may be the artifacting that you are seeing.